This post is part of my Anarchist Bible series - see the introduction and list of posts.

One significant memory I have of the various protests in Chicago over the last few years is the flood of complaints of drivers when protestors would occupy major streets like Lake Shore Drive and obstruct the flow of traffic there. Why would activists frustrate so many regular people just going to do their jobs in the business centers of downtown?

With vivid images coming out of LA of protests against ICE raids and abuses and the violent responses to those protesting, what might Jesus’ example have to show us about protest, property destruction, and the obstruction of the flow of commerce in the public square?

First, I’ll note there are two very different types of protest. One is coordinated with state authorities and contained within pre-planned areas supervised by police. This type primarily functions to generate awareness of an issue through media attention and to increase buy-in for further action among attendees sympathetic to the cause.

The other intentionally does not coordinate with the authorities and seeks to disrupt the status quo, even if for a brief time, through a wide range of actions. Depending on the beliefs of the protestors, that would span anywhere from obstruction of traffic through occupation of streets to destructive acts like assassinations and bombings. This is the category on which I want to investigate Jesus’ perspective.

Typically anarchists involved in protest are engaged somewhere in this range, though perspectives vary on what is effective and acceptable. In anarchist history and practice, a significant concept is “propaganda of the deed”. Popularized as a term in the late 1800’s, this often referred to the more destructive end of this spectrum, but could cover a wide range of actions which were meant to go beyond just verbally spreading ideas by speaking about them and instead use actions in the public sphere to change minds, spread ideas, and transform society. Actions among anarchists of that period involved occupation of public space, seizure and burning of government documents like tax records, bank robberies, assassination of government officials and prominent capitalists, and bombings of symbolic targets.

Recently, Luigi Mangione's alleged assassination of health insurance executive Brian Thompson was a significant example of the type of activity on the more violent end of propaganda of the deed, symbolic violence reminiscent of past anarchists: Leon Czolgosz’s assassination of President McKinley or Alexander Berkman’s attempted assassination of capitalist Henry Clay Frick who was attempting to break a large union strike.

This range of actions considered propaganda of the deed has a few different intertwined purposes. They are meant to ignite a “spirit of revolt” by condemning and showing the illegitimacy of the status quo, give hope to the masses that change is possible by showing that dominant institutions are not omnipotent, and raise the consciousness in all classes of society of the circumstances of oppression through highly visible and disruptive symbolic action. Often the actions would be paired with some form of political education to fully achieve their purposes.

A major question debated among anarchists of varied perspectives, as well as for our examination of the example of Jesus, is the question of violence. What constitutes violence and when, if ever, is that violence acceptable/effective?

So, where do we see Jesus engaged in propaganda of the deed, what type of activities does he engage in, and for what purpose?

Jesus’ Words and Deeds

From Mark’s version:

They came into Jerusalem. After entering the temple, he threw out those who were selling and buying there. He pushed over the tables used for currency exchange and the chairs of those who sold doves. He didn’t allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He taught them, “Hasn’t it been written, My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations? But you’ve turned it into a hideout for crooks.” The chief priests and legal experts heard this and tried to find a way to destroy him. They regarded him as dangerous because the whole crowd was enthralled at his teaching. - Mark 11:15-18

From Luke’s version:

As Jesus came to the city and observed it, he wept over it. He said, “If only you knew on this of all days the things that lead to peace. But now they are hidden from your eyes. The time will come when your enemies will build fortifications around you, encircle you, and attack you from all sides. They will crush you completely, you and the people within you. They won’t leave one stone on top of another within you, because you didn’t recognize the time of your gracious visit from God.”

When Jesus entered the temple, he threw out those who were selling things there. He said to them, “It’s written, My house will be a house of prayer, but you have made it a hideout for crooks.”

Jesus was teaching daily in the temple. The chief priests, the legal experts, and the foremost leaders among the people were seeking to kill him. However, they couldn’t find a way to do it because all the people were enthralled with what they heard. - Luke 19:41-48

Understanding the Temple System

At the time of Jesus, the priests who ruled the temple were collaborators with the Roman Empire largely holding authority over the southern portion of Israel on Rome’s behalf, and they were extremely wealthy. This wealth came through multiple means, including violent extortion from lower-ranking priests especially in the villages, bribery for political power and gain, embezzlement from donated funds meant for sacrifices and temple administration, extreme-interest loans to the financially destitute, and seizure of land when those loans were not paid. This formed a cycle of wealth-centralization by the temple elites that impoverished ever-growing multitudes of the people, thousands of whom had become landless, which was particularly egregious in a society where God had intended equally distributed land for all people. As the home of the high priest, public location of the priesthood, site of the treasury of the priesthood’s wealth, and storehouse of the records of debt and land titles that fueled the exploitation, the temple was the symbol of the crushing corruption and debt-slavery looming over the daily life of Jewish peasants. Unsurprisingly, the last successful rebels in Israel, the Maccabees, engaged in their own propaganda of the deed, seizing the debt, tax, and land title records in the temple and burning them to give the people a new start. Decades after the short-lived Maccabean kingdom, the chief priests had again built up their kingdom of oppressive exploitation. It's in the very heart of this system that Jesus stages his action. (See Nicholas Perrin’s Jesus the Temple for reference on this situation and further reading on Jesus’ action there.)

Disrupting the Temple System

I think throughout Jesus’ teaching and action we see him reject violence. He teaches love of enemies, forgiveness of persecutors, turning the other cheek (more on that to come!), and willingly goes to his own death rather than leading violent revolt. He teaches that “those who live by the sword will die by the sword”. So how exactly do we distinguish what is the “violence” that Jesus rejects versus the types of actions that would be more in parallel with Jesus’ action in the temple?

I think the word “violence” itself is helpful. Related to “violate”, I think that the violence that Jesus would exclude is that which violates the image of God in which we all are created. Instead of a list of condemned activities, I’d suggest a question: “Is this honoring the image of God in all others?” Is it seeking to bring others towards the life God wants, promoting freedom and flourishing? Or is it dehumanizing, destroying freedom, or ending lives without opportunity for redemption? To me, Jesus seems to close the door on killing, as it removes the opportunity for redemption and continued free choice, destroying life in God’s image.

Partly, I think this comes from a recognition of the futility of violence for revenge or revolution. Jesus sees the old law “an eye for an eye”, meant to limit revenge to equal retribution, and recognizes that it leaves both parties blind, instead counseling forgiveness that breaks the cycle of violence. He sees the cycle of violent revolts of Israel against Rome that end with mass death of rebels and non-combatants alike and weeps over the destruction he foresees coming upon Jerusalem when they next revolt, and he avoids the clamoring of the people and Satan’s wilderness temptations for him to lead them in violent revolution.

At the same time, Jesus sees oppressive structures and is not passive. He turns decisively towards Jerusalem knowing he is setting up a dramatic confrontation. He times his arrival to Passover, a celebration of God’s liberation of people from empire and slavery, when crowds are gathered, revolution is in the air, and imperial authorities are on high alert. He heads directly to the temple upon his arrival and scouts out the area, but waits until returning on the following day to start his direct action (it seems likely he thought violence would erupt if he took action with the crowd's energy upon his arrival). He takes up a whip (in John’s version), drives out animals and moneychangers and disrupts the processes of the temple system, likely damages property, causes chaos that results in the moneychangers’ coins scattered across the ground for the crowds to collect, and all of that brings not only the changing of coins and buying of animals to a halt but the entire process of temple sacrifices which those animals fueled. Does Jesus permanently shut down the temple? No. But in the manner of propaganda of the deed he temporarily and symbolically shuts it down and does an Occupy Temple moment, taking over the public space with a teach-in at which he conducts the political education essential to making propaganda of the deed transformative. His actions symbolically condemn the system which the temple had come to house, facilitate, and represent, and the authorities recognize it, executing him within four days.

The Teach-In

The teaching Jesus does during his teach-in suggest his priorities and color our interpretation of his Occupy Temple moment, as well as his own audience’s understanding. First, as he clears the table, the various accounts have him quoting sayings from the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah related to condemnation of corrupt leadership and the destruction of the temple due to systemic sin and oppression of the poor. He then tells a coded story condemning the leadership of the nation for selfish exploitation and violence and proclaiming God's judgment coming upon them (parable of the tenant farmers). He tells a story of a banquet that suggests the Kingdom of God will be filled with the common people in an unwelcome surprise to those leaders who think themselves righteous. He responds to an entrapping inquiry about paying taxes with a clever rejection of the authority of the empire (more on that to come!), he explicitly condemns the religious leaders of the Jewish people and predicts the destruction of the very temple and city he sits within for the ways their activities have rejected the way of God. He redirects the people to the true way of God which is to care for the hungry, thirsty, strangers, sick, and imprisoned (parable of the sheep and goats).

It is a message of condemnation upon Israel’s leaders and institutions, a message that God has rejected their rule as well as the rule of Caesar, that a great reversal is coming and that people ought to get on the right side of it through solidarity with those on the margins. This is political education, reshaping the people’s view of God’s perspective on the exploitation all around them. It is a revolutionary message, and the authorities recognize it, as these teachings are immediately followed by leaders plotting Jesus’ death.

While Jesus is very explicitly not trying to ignite a violent revolt, he is very much not just within but inspiring the later tradition of propaganda of the deed as his actions seek to condemn the status quo, give hope to the masses that change is possible by showing that dominant institutions are not omnipotent, and raise the consciousness of the people regarding their oppression, all while, in his case, proclaiming that God's judgment is coming on the corrupt elites.

Where would Jesus be today?

With all of this in mind, I wonder, where would Jesus be today? Would he be in the halls of power directing police crackdowns on protests? Would he be watching on TV shaking his head on those who cause chaos? Would he be criticizing their approach? Would he be sitting in traffic honking his horn to get things moving again? Or might he, seeing the exploitation of capitalism and violence of incarceration and deportation and family separation all around us, be flipping tables and occupying public space at the risk of his life? (And what are the parallels to the moneychangers’ tables today?)

Reflection: “Maybe Both, 1865”

In conversation with the above, as well as today’s remembrance of Juneteenth’s liberation proclamation in 1865, reflect on the challenging questions and ambiguities of Sho Baraka’s “Maybe Both, 1865”.

Historical Heroes:

I'll regularly highlight historical heroes, often in the week of their birth or death. Today is an annual celebration in some churches of the life of Sadhu Sundar Singh.

Sadhu Sundar Singh of the Himalayas (3 September 1889-1929) was a traveling preacher in India and Tibet. He was born into a Sikh family. He hated God after the early death of his mother and wanted to kill himself. As he planned this, he had a dramatic vision of Jesus, decided to follow him, and was rejected by his family. Some attempted to kill him with poison. He was baptized on his sixteenth birthday. He journeyed through the area as a Christian Sadhu, preaching the good news of Jesus and living without possessions. As he saw the British attempts to have Indians adopt British culture along with Christianity, he saw this as problematic and thought much of it was opposed to Christianity. He sought to preserve an Indian identity for the Indian church. He went through training at an Anglican college, but it was culturally, relationally, and academically challenging, as he felt isolated and that the teaching was largely irrelevant to the life of the people. He left and refused to give up Indian cultural elements to adopt formal British worship. As he continued in mission, there were reports of many miracles alongside his preaching, and he saw many come to faith. He traveled many places, challenging materialism and preaching Jesus. He died on one of his hazardous foot trips through the Himalayas.